What is Digg?271 Comments
- JoeParanoid, on 04/01/2009, -15/+95Reagan emptied our mental health institutions claiming it would save us money. The costs of the resulting homeless situation (including the return of such diseases as TB) has dwarfed the miserly amount we may have saved and demonstrated to the world how meanspirited we can be.
- Sogui, on 04/02/2009, -0/+51I went to that very ER mentioned in the article 1 year ago.
Absolutely awful, spent forever in the waiting room which was small and packed with mostly homeless or mentally impaired individuals. I made the mistake of pulling out my cellphone to call a friend and suddenly I got multiple requests from people to use my phone despite a free phone being on the wall like 10 feet away. Half the staff was looking for someone who apparently was "running loose" in one of the halls and security was busy escorting a convict into the screening area.
After 3 hours in that first lovely room they moved me into another waiting room that would take another hour, then finally I got to wait in a room for another hour for kicks... spent the whole damn evening there. By the end of it I pondered if ANY emergency was worth going back to the hospital for.
I believe Brackenridge is unique in that it doesn't require insurance, which is why it's always packed and absolutely awful in terms of quality... this article really doesn't come as a surprise. - Risingashes, on 04/02/2009, -31/+72We shouldn't have public health care because it could be abused.
We shouldn't have an emergency 911 line as anyone can just call it for silly reasons.
We shouldn't have public roads as people can drive around for no apparent reason, or in order to commit crimes. - jdames1980, on 04/02/2009, -1/+40This is not news unfortunately. Anyone who works at a hospital knows there are high numbers of drug addicts who fake symptoms just to get admitted so they can get their next fix. It is really infuriating.
- inactive, on 04/01/2009, -39/+76Eight of the nine patients have drug abuse problems. Glad to see our $634 billion of tax money will be used to help that gang member that shot my lil brother. I want my government to make sure he doesn't OD. Because he has contributed so much to society. We should also pay to feed and house him…..
- Platypus3333, on 04/02/2009, -8/+43How did you go from "drug abuse problems" to "gang member"?
- MuadDave, on 04/02/2009, -0/+31If my math is correct, that averages out to a visit almost every week for each patient over 6 years (2003 - 2008 inclusive).
(2700 visits / 6 years / 9 patients = 50 visits/year/patient) - dazparkour, on 04/02/2009, -9/+39Don't slippery slope me.
He has a point - society should punish some people by removing those people from the benifits that living in a society provide - like insurance, where everyone pays in money and only the unlucky should ever need to take it out, allowing everyone to spread out the cost just in case.
If you can't behave as part of a society, you should not get the benifits of collective living. - banosd, on 04/02/2009, -3/+29I knew a detox driver in Seattle who said there was a Native American guy that cost the city half a million just by himself. He would be picked up off the streets almost nightly. They even sent him on a train to South Daokta to live with his relatives to try and get rid of him. Then he came back!
- galore, on 04/02/2009, -15/+41Actually, the patients didn't cost $3M. Outrageous ER charges cost the Taxpayer $3M.
$1000 per visit. LOL! - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -3/+28What the hell is up with the state of mental health care in this country? Our basic solution seems to be shouting "Hey, stop acting crazy!" People expect the mentally ill to just take personal responsibility and pay for their own treatment - but oftentimes, being mentally ill makes it incredibly difficult to hold a job, which prevents one from earning enough money to get treated. It's a vicious cycle, but people seem to act like they'd rather these people just die on the streets. I just want someone to be upfront and say "Look, I know for a fact that if these people don't receive outside help, their situation won't improve, but I just don't think they deserve outside help."
- SomeHobo, on 04/02/2009, -3/+27Seems to me like a good argument to open more detox clinics and mental hospitals.
- sneaker98, on 04/02/2009, -14/+36You'd rather a for-profit company ration your healthcare instead? Cause that isn't really working out for 45 million of your citizens.
- McKoKslarge, on 04/02/2009, -1/+20we should have just gave the people badges and a mop. keep them in the hospital at a much lower cost
- inactive, on 04/02/2009, -3/+22Article 1 Section 8:
Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; - ZeoFateX, on 04/02/2009, -0/+17I ride EMS in my town and work in an ER and we have one particular patient, a "frequent flier" if you will, who has had ten calls in the past month (and more than that over the past few -- just an example).
It is an older male (90's) who cannot / does not take care of himself -- his wife is no more capable, and they live alone. The problem with this particular patient stems from the fact that he doesn't take his medication regularly for his blood pressure and then proceeds to have complications (edema, oliguria, dizziness, hypertension).
While normally you would think oh, he can drive himself it's non-emergent, just leave him there, we cannot do this. It is unethical first of all (and I agree), but second of all he HAS had significant cardiac events where he has needed immediate help.
Then of course we have to take him to the hospital, who treats him, charges him, and returns him home.
He is competent enough to say that he does not want to go to a nursing home, and he is not being abused, etc.
The ERs cannot refuse patients brought in by ambulance so they get stuck with him...
I've looked into calling social services, or his sons / daughters but HIPAA prevents me from releasing information to family without his permission.
And MediCare/MediCaid ends up paying for it.
It's a lose/lose. - SomeHobo, on 04/02/2009, -8/+24We have national healthcare in Canada and no one goes to the emergency for a papercut.
Although it is true there are abuses it is far from being as ruinous as you would think. - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -7/+23The article said that most of these people were mentally ill. If we had national healthcare, they could receive the treatment that they obviously need, which would keep them from abusing the ER.
- whiledo, on 04/02/2009, -7/+22This isn't a slippery slope argument. It's pointing out the problem with not seeing the forest for the trees. Also known as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
- inactive, on 04/02/2009, -4/+18@donte
Because they're a burden on society. You think there is no cost to you in just ignoring the problem? Looks to me that the cost of ignoring the needs of just nine people here is $3 million. Your problem is that your argument is based on ideology - ideologically, you believe the government shouldn't be involved here, but you completely ignore the pragmatics of the situation. Something needs to be done about these people. Clearly private organizations aren't doing enough, and paying for the mental treatment of these people would be far cheaper than letting them just continue to drain the system - besides which, there is hope that they may one day become productive members of society if they receive treatment. - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -3/+17I bristled when i once heard the word "gomer", for "get out of my emergency room", ie unfixable dirtbag parasites like these tools; thought it was unbelievably crass thing for a doctor to say. but it sure fits these morons
- inactive, on 04/02/2009, -4/+18So you are fat then
- johnnyg113, on 04/02/2009, -1/+14What's really ironic is that the overhead for medicare and medicaid is a lot less then that of the private insurance comanies. They have about 15% overhead, most of which is used to deny coverage (look for pre existing conditions, find ways out of paying, etc etc). The overhead for medicare and medicaid is in the range of 3%, because they don't worry about any of that crap.
And for the constitution part, it could be argued that it'd fall under the life part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness". - spreadheadTC, on 04/02/2009, -2/+15I love it. Did you see the part where they mentioned that the average age of the men in the group was 50? Do you really think those any of those guys are gangbangers? Use your brain.
- Risingashes, on 04/02/2009, -2/+15@rizzo2008: Both are services able to be provided by governments which have significant positive externalities.
@dazparkour: Of course he has a point, it's a shame that under nationalized health that these anomalies could occur. But what is absurd is the suggestion that the possibility that such a case could occur means that the entire system shouldn't be considered.
If unacceptable anomalies occur or can occur they should be corrected while the functioning and beneficial parts are allowed to continue.
This type of emotive demonizing of the stimulus is counterproductive to actual discussion. - smemily, on 04/02/2009, -1/+14Did you miss the part where you're already paying for these people's health care, but you're paying for it in the least efficient and most costly way possible while ensuring they clog ERs? If there were universal health care these people could receive either (cheaper, more effective) office visits or perhaps some mental health treatment, at a vast savings to taxpayers with a better outcome.
- shadus, on 04/02/2009, -3/+16You know, in the grand scheme, that's 50 visits to the ER by each person, each year. Roughly 1 visit to er/week per person. I've known truly sick people who ended up there on a daily basis for weeks on end because they had no insurance and couldn't get real treatment they just got shuffled around a bit and then booted out for weeks on end.
If these people got roughly the same service, and based on my stint on medicaid a while back, they probably did, the hospital should be sued, because they didn't get 1k/visit worth of care. - mrsteveman1, on 04/02/2009, -3/+16Well that was quick...
- Jimbob200, on 04/02/2009, -3/+15"Because it's not a good point. Slippery slope arguments are generally used because the person can't defend his position based on it's particular merits."
Risingashe's post was not a slippery slope argument in any way. He was merely pointing out the idiocy inherent in an argument that says we shouldn't do X because some people will abuse it. - christoast, on 04/02/2009, -9/+20LOL @ the 3rd one. I don't know why people are digging you down, its a good point.
- whiledo, on 04/02/2009, -2/+13How much money does it cost to kick out someone, claiming they are a hypochondriac, only to find out they weren't faking the symptoms this time, have them die, then get sued?
Hint: More than $3 million. - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -1/+11no it's not, they're both funded by the public, which is the point of this.
- tinkafoo, on 04/02/2009, -3/+13It only cost that much because the hospital says it does.
- bossm4n, on 04/02/2009, -3/+13Just visit an ER on a busy night. We already have nation health care. Hospitals are packed with people who don't have health insurance, in many cases illegal aliens who cannot be denied treatment. Our system is abused beyond belief. In many border towns, pregnant mothers cross the border into the US just to go to hospitals here in order to get free treatment when they are giving birth.
- whiledo, on 04/02/2009, -1/+11Not really. These people ALREADY HAVE universal healthcare. And you're paying for it. They go to the ER where they can't be turned away for having no money, when they could go to any other clinic for a much lower cost.
Whether you're in favor of universal healthcare, single payer healthcare, etc., you have to realize that this is true and there's not really much you can do about it other than funneling them to lower-cost providers. - inactive, on 04/02/2009, -5/+15Yeah... Last time I went to an hospital in a "socialized" country (Sacré-Coeur in Montreal) I saw them to. Only, it was rpetty evident that the homeless/druggie don't go there for health care, they go there because it's warm and quiet.
The staff knows it, doctors knows it, everyone knows it. But at 1000$ a pop, they aren't going to tell them to leave are they? Abuse is done as much on the doctors' side than the patients.
If this is all you can find against Public Health Care, you are looking at the wrong place. There is abuse in any systems, what you have to look at is the social cost vs the social benefits. - galore, on 04/02/2009, -2/+11Sure, but this "*****" would have to be paid for regardless of those 9 patients so you can't exactly blame it on them. Unless you think without those 9 patients there would be layoffs and less maintenance (at $1000 a pop).
- shadus, on 04/02/2009, -7/+16Except that there is no difference between companies. They all suck, you pay into them for years, then when you actually need something done they do everything in their power to exclude you from coverage including paying doctors who never see you to say "not medically necessary."
- dalittle, on 04/02/2009, -1/+10I actually love these guys, they are quite entertaining. They show up, make negative attacks without offering any alternative policies then run away so they cannot be judged.
- Jimbob200, on 04/02/2009, -2/+11brbubba,
It is not a logical fallacy. If anything it's satirical. If anything, the post about ER's and papercuts is illogical. People going to the ER in a national health care system for a papercut does not mean that everyone going to an ER in a national health care system will have a papercut. Risingashe's post demonstrated how illogical it is to say we should not have something because some people will abuse it, by highlighting current public services that are abused.
Further, it would be illogical to assume that just because a woman called 911 911to complain there no McNuggets left and wasted the operator's time, that a 911 system is not an extremely effective method of saving people's lives.
Likewise the utility of having roads that the vast majority of law-abiding people can use is greater than the trouble posed by those relative few who use roads to travel to other locations to commit crimes.
Get it? - satori3000, on 04/02/2009, -4/+12So set up an investigation bureau to limit this sort of work rather than kill any idea of public health care because of two idgits.
- johnnyg113, on 04/02/2009, -0/+8Actually, I believe most emergency visits in Canada and France are very timely, since they don't have people going to the ER for fevers and colds. What takes weeks to months is non-emergency related, like some scans and whatnot. But even then I believe you can pay to get one done faster.
- mjk340, on 04/02/2009, -0/+8You will get a bill in the mail and take a hit on your credit report, which keeps most responsible people from using the emergency room freebie workaround. The truly poor and homeless don't care if they can qualify for a loan for a new Lexus next quarter, they just want the pain to go away.
- DarkStar3333, on 04/02/2009, -1/+9Easy solution would be to attach a clinic to the hospital and have a triange nurse/doctor that evaluates your condition and sends you to the appropriate waiting area.
So if your not seriously Ill get you sent to the clinic line, if your need emergency care they can take you into the hospital right away.
People would start to get the point when the hospitals clinic wait time topped 4+ hours vs the neighbourhood clinic wait of 1-2 hrs. - Jimbob200, on 04/02/2009, -2/+10thinkb4utype: that is a fallacious argument. Just because you were twenty-something and didn't need health care does not mean that all twenty-somethings are healthy and do not need health care.
If a national health care system starts up in America in the next eight years, taxpayers young and old will be paying for mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, the young, the old, the handicapped and the mentally ill. They will not be paying solely for geezers like you who should be working at 10 A.M and not on Digg. - smemily, on 04/02/2009, -0/+8That's why Seattle tried their homeless alcoholic housing project:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...
They found that it saved the city a ton of money in reduced ER, drunk tank, and police visits and as a bonus, some of the alcoholics, feeling like legitimate people recognized as having worth, actually got clean. - mjk340, on 04/02/2009, -0/+8I don't think sticking to ideals regardless of reality commands any respect. Even more universal ideals like 'Be kind to your neighbor' need to be broken if your neighbor is taking advantage of you, stealing your weed whacker and ***** your wife.
An ideal like 'small federal government' is great and all but the reality of the situation is that the federal government commands the majority of our tax money and states do not have the infrastructure in place to deal with hospitalizing mentally ill and homeless.
If Reagan would have cut federal programs in addition to cutting federal income taxes to 1.5%, leaving the states able to tax in 25%-40% brackets and pick up the slack, that would have been a true states' rights small federal government conservative. Reagan cut programs on ideological grounds without simultaneously empowering the states to pick up the slack, which is irresponsible.
You could argue that we shouldn't care for these leeches at all. Personally, I'd rather not have blocks in my city that I can't even walk on because it is filled with mentally ill, potentially dangerous homeless. It's a sign of an advanced and civilized society to take care of the sick and weak. - flygirl62, on 04/02/2009, -4/+12and if they get treatment in the US *while* giving birth, their child is now a US Citizen and an "anchor baby." There's a law that should be changed.
- Risingashes, on 04/02/2009, -1/+8@brbubba: I see nothing wrong with my comment.
All three examples were of a similar format and, while the last two may be seen as exaggerated, were not extreme enough to make the point irrelevant.
Then again, suggesting that public health shouldn't be considered due to possible exploitation is just about as ridiculous a point as I could imagine- so maybe I'm biased. - ZeoFateX, on 04/02/2009, -0/+7What I meant was he and his wife can't drive themselves. They never, ever leave the house. Food / Meds are delivered to them.
And it's not that he refuses to take his medication, but rather he has difficulty remembering, and remembering whether he took it or not. His wife has her own issues.
Other than this the guy is in GREAT condition and it's perfectly understandable why he wouldn't want to go to a home.
And this is in NJ.
(past edit time) -
Show 51 - 100 of 281 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is